Nice work.  I used to paint a lot of miniatures back in the day playing D&D and Star Wars RPG’s.  I loved it.  I am thinking about doing an Axis & Allies painting project once I get all the new units from Field Marshal Games.

I hear what you are saying.  What about if it was limited to bombing runs?  In such, Bombers were allowed to penetrate the enemy line and attack (taking fire from enemy forces & AA), then the ground forces move in.  Still unbalancing?

In my seemingly endless reading on World War 2, I just read about Vichy France.  I was wondering what the general feeling is to … instead of simply having France fall to the Germans (which it has in Germany’s first move in every game I’ve played) then see a few French units run around the board like a chicken with it’s head cut off…  to have all french units turn into German units.

…or would that wickedly unbalance things right off the bat?

I know the general rule is that all attack movements are simultaneous, but what does it do (in your opinion) to allow “attack waves” ?  In such, I mean what if you wanted to send one volley of units into a territory to clear out the enemy to allow your second wave to move through it (tanks blitzing) to try to take another area.  Same concept could be applied to one wave of ships working over some enemy ships - and once they are destroyed, other ships can roll through.

Units would need to be announced that the intention was to move through the previous battle area before the first battle happened, this way - the second wave was committed to move through the area.  …and IF the enemy was victorious, the second wave would need to stop and fight, now unable to make it to their previous destination.

Thoughts?

The rules state that an air unit may fly over an enemy territory, but it does not specify if that’s a territory with or without enemy units in it.  It kinda makes sense that planes can fly over Infantry.  Am I missing the part of the rules that talk about this?

I was playing this evening and the Axis wanted to fly over a territory of mine (Allies) to attack another territory.  we discussed it, looked in the rules.  No luck.  My only major objection was that I had air units in the territory.  So, I felt those protected the skies, thus stopping air movement over my ground troops.

Thoughts?

@Fishmoto37:

@MrNacho:

I’ve run through the game using Global Rules a few times and something has always bothered me (and most of the other players I play with) …the USA is wicked rich.  It seems extremely weighted to the USA that they START the game with 52 IPC, and can use this to push out lots of new units and prepare for war.  Fact is that while some items were being produced before Dec 7, 1941 - most of it was smaller amounts of defensive measures.  The IPC allowance, we feel, is disproportionate to that of historical reality.  This essentially allows the USA to collect 156 IPC in the first three rounds to build a massive armada before it enters the war.

To address this issue, we are currently running a game with these criteria:  USA starts with 25 IPC.  The end of the first round they get 30, end of second round they get 40.  For each round after that (or earlier if they are attacked and go to war), they get a base of 70 + any new territories it manages to hold.  This, to us, simulates the ramp-up of production in a more realistic way.  Otherwise, again, it’s like the USA just gets to build and fortify for a Pacific on-slaught of the Japanese.

I am looking for some constructive feedback to enlighten me on the theory behind the USA raking in so much money - and why our idea is perhaps a wise view (or totally confused).

Thanks.
– Nacho

Nacho, you are absolutly correct about the huge U.S. pre-war income. At the end of round three they can have a giant fleet already in position to strike in round four with massive reinforcements on the way. I have posted an income schedule under house rules that I am going to play test in our session this very day. Will probably take two sessions to complete.

I look forward to hearing your report on how it went.  I too am testing a new IPC schedule for the USA and will share too.

I’ve run through the game using Global Rules a few times and something has always bothered me (and most of the other players I play with) …the USA is wicked rich.  It seems extremely weighted to the USA that they START the game with 52 IPC, and can use this to push out lots of new units and prepare for war.  Fact is that while some items were being produced before Dec 7, 1941 - most of it was smaller amounts of defensive measures.  The IPC allowance, we feel, is disproportionate to that of historical reality.  This essentially allows the USA to collect 156 IPC in the first three rounds to build a massive armada before it enters the war.

To address this issue, we are currently running a game with these criteria:  USA starts with 25 IPC.  The end of the first round they get 30, end of second round they get 40.  For each round after that (or earlier if they are attacked and go to war), they get a base of 70 + any new territories it manages to hold.  This, to us, simulates the ramp-up of production in a more realistic way.  Otherwise, again, it’s like the USA just gets to build and fortify for a Pacific on-slaught of the Japanese.

I am looking for some constructive feedback to enlighten me on the theory behind the USA raking in so much money - and why our idea is perhaps a wise view (or totally confused).

Thanks.
– Nacho

I have only played Global Rules three times (just started a fourth game the other day).  We play when we can, leaving the gameboard set up.  Our games have typically lasted about 18 hours each.